Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always thought it pretty weird that Michigan has an Upper and Lower Penininsula. I always thought the U.P. should belong to Wisconsin. I also find it weird that the great lakes system made Michigan's L.P. shaped like an oven mitten.
Michigan. It can't help its mitten shape, but the whole upper peninsula part should belong to Wisconsin. The way it's separated is weird.
You probably know why that is, but Michigan was given the acreage in what was to become the Upper Peninsula by the federal government to compensate for having to give Toledo and control of the Maumee River and its access to Lake Erie to Ohio in the Toledo War back in the 1830s.
"At the stroke of a pen, Toledo and the Maumee officially became part of the state of Ohio. Michigan, meanwhile, was compensated with 9,000 square miles of land on the Upper Peninsula between Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. At the time, many Michiganders considered the trade-off a bad deal. The Detroit Free Press even dubbed the Upper Peninsula a barren wasteland of “perpetual snows,” but public opinion later shifted after the region was found to contain valuable deposits of copper and iron ore."
Had things gone the other way, Michigan would simply be a big mitten with a little more wrist and the UP would surely belong to Wisconsin.
Also Oklahoma is like a pot with handle...it’s panhandle,
a panhandle so skinny,it’s like why bother, give it to Texas
True, but I've always appreciated the fact that the Oklahoma Panhandle at least makes the state truly look like a pan with a handle. To me, the Texas Panhandle doesn't remotely resemble a handle or a pan in any way, shape, or form. It's just a big block of land sticking up from the rest of the state. Had they given that chunk of land to Oklahoma then Oklahoma would no longer be a pan with a well defined handle but would look almost exactly like Kansas.
True, but I've always appreciated the fact that the Oklahoma Panhandle at least makes the state truly look like a pan with a handle. To me, the Texas Panhandle doesn't remotely resemble a handle or a pan in any way, shape, or form. It's just a big block of land sticking up from the rest of the state. Had they given that chunk of land to Oklahoma then Oklahoma would no longer be a pan with a well defined handle but would look almost exactly like Kansas.
Instead of calling it the Texas Panhandle they should call it the Texas Chimney.
I find the Oklahoma/Texas area interesting. I feel like the Texas panhandle should have been Oklahoma. What’s the history behind the narrow Oklahoma panhandle?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.